I had a discussion recently regarding this, and have played in several campaigns with various DM's who approach this very differently.
We know that railroading happens when the choices that players make have no or little impact on adventure/campaign that they're playing in--they're passengers rather than drivers.
But I've run into some grey areas--and I'm curious what you guys think as agency. I'm a teacher by profession, so 'student agency' is a cornerstone to learning, and naturally I bring that background into D&D for further thought.
Agency in Education So typically agency means that students have a choice. This choice has parameters, but there are choices within those parameters. "You can read a book or do some free writing." Student feels empowered by that choice. But I call it "Agency Illusion".
Agency illusion What I'm phrasing as Agency Illusion is where options are provided to you, and you choose one. There is a feeling of agency, but the choices are mandatory. "This or that"--in reality a choice is being forced upon you without the person perceiving that they're being forced into a decision. This is also a great parenting strategy.
D&D Agency Illusion I have yet to play in what I consider a 'true agency' campaign, but I haven't been a lifetime player--so maybe some of you have. Wondering what you think. I'm in a campaign where at the end of the session the DM goes "Ok, where do you want to go to next?" then we say "here" and then he preps for that. We can't do anything except for where we said we'd go however. So is that agency?
I feel like it's a bit railroady, but I can't quite identify why. In the end we're all having a good time--that's the point, but from a meta-play aspect, it feels like superficial agency: agency illusion.
True Agency Wondering if any of you have had this experience, or whether this is too idealistic. True agency would be that you have a campaign map/area, and players go and do whatever the heck they want, anywhere they want. To make this happen a DM would need to prepare every single major location, city, cave, battlemap ahead of time with loot, quests, material--so that if a player wanted to say "I'm going this town" "I want to visit this ruin" or "Let's go explore the woods!"--there's always something. This would be a massive front-loaded preparation. Does anyone do this? (to be fair, that's exactly what a module does right?)
Ideally I would want a player to be able to go anywhere, do anything--and while that would require a ton of pre-prep, after that prep, session prep would be virtually nil (only need to prep on how they impacted the world).
Ultimately for me, agency means being given no choices at all--the players make the choices rather than select choices they're given.
I view the "OK, where do you want to go next?" path as anything except the railroad. While it does ask the players to honor their chosen path, that's more about the meta agreement that a DM needs to prepare content for and be ready for the players in the upcoming game session.
Before I start a campaign, I do enough worldbuilding to feel comfortable running improv sessions as needed. Players deviating from their prior intent is OK but has consequences. I paint my settings as "consequence engines" in so much as the state of the world responds to character actions. If the party of characters ignores the marauding goblins, they've been asked to stop because they want to investigate a lost ruin for treasures - the goblins go on marauding and possibly get stronger. If the party stops the goblins, the ruin may have changed state (someone else got the treasure, or a hidden evil grows stronger).
In general, I try to avoid "Nope, I haven't prepared that. Let's do the thing I've prepared instead!" situations. If the characters are doing something very important and I'm not prepared, I'll ask to step away from the table for 30 minutes or so to do some quick updates—or end the session if it's going to be massive work. In those rare cases, I just speak honestly
Ultimately, agency in my game is "Your character can try anything that makes sense in the setting. There'll be consequences, but that's not always bad."
I think you're never going to get to true True Agency with pre-planning, because the DM can't anticipate every single thing that a player could possibly want to do. You can run a campaign in a closed environment, like Curse of Strahd's Ravenloft, but that's not really a solution; the very act of closing the system is a limitation on player agency. Even a hypothetical Laplace's Dungeon Master capable of simulating an entire universe in their mind moment to moment doesn't offer a player true True Agency, because they've precluded the player from choosing to do anything outside the simulated environment.
Procedural generation is a solution to this, but it comes with its own problems. Basically with procedural generation, you create whatever the players ask for in real time, typically with a series of tables. So if my players ask "is there a potion shop nearby", I can roll a few dice and say "Sure, there's one about 20 minutes away on foot. It's called the Thistle and Berry. The proprietor is a Fire Genasi named Agi Diarahan. They specialize in potions of Lesser Restoration." My players know, on some level, that the Thistle and Berry didn't exist before they asked for it. But they wanted to go to a potion shop, and here one is. The pinnacle of agency. Yet it feels a little hollow, doesn't it? Procedural generation presents you with a world of infinite Content, none of it planned, none of it meaningful.
This is the tightrope DMs have to walk; players want agency, but they also want meaningful experiences. Ultimately you're going to tend more towards one or the other depending on the group and your own preferences and constraints as a DM. My personal opinion is that players don't play D&D to have absolute agency. They expect and even demand some level of restriction in service to the verisimilitude of the world. Rather than a railroad or a sandbox, I shoot for more of a parkway experience; a clear road with multiple pre-determined exits to choose between, with plenty worth seeing at each.
Ideally I would want a player to be able to go anywhere, do anything--and while that would require a ton of pre-prep, after that prep, session prep would be virtually nil (only need to prep on how they impacted the world).
The core problem with doing that is that it means you need to prep everywhere the character could possibly go, which is much more than where the character will actually go. In a walled sandbox like Curse of Strahd that might only force you to prep twice as much material as you'll ever use, but in more open settings it can require completely nonviable amounts of prep (thousands of times as much as you'll ever use). People go with just-in-time prep (tell me at the end of a session where you're going) because it's the only way to effectively run a campaign with a large scope.
I think you need to honor the social contract you have with your GM. He asks you ahead of time where you want to go. That's pretty open. He isn't saying the ruins or the town. You get to choose where to go. This allows him to prep the place you SAID you want to go to and give you a good game. That is a great format and you should not feel you are being railroaded at all. It is a choice the party is making, not choosing options he is giving you.
As a sidenote, many parties need the "choose A or B or C." This lets them know possible directions. Otherwise they can get a bit lost and not know what to do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I have experimented with this heavily over thirty years, and here are some of my observations. In mmos they call this a sandbox vs. theme park setting. And it should be established first with players what they want before going either way. They are different kinds of games, and different kinds of play. I experimented with a pure sandbox once, using my collected materials about the sword coast. It's possible because I have been playing in that setting my entire life, I have stories about everywhere. But in the pure sandbox we even didn't give the characters a hook to meet, just to see what would happen. It took weeks in the game before people ran into each other coincidentally in Waterdeep. The interesting result of that game though was that while the experiment was declared a terrible idea, the player characters were well-developed and lived on in other games.
I had a discussion recently regarding this, and have played in several campaigns with various DM's who approach this very differently.
We know that railroading happens when the choices that players make have no or little impact on adventure/campaign that they're playing in--they're passengers rather than drivers.
But I've run into some grey areas--and I'm curious what you guys think as agency. I'm a teacher by profession, so 'student agency' is a cornerstone to learning, and naturally I bring that background into D&D for further thought.
Agency in Education So typically agency means that students have a choice. This choice has parameters, but there are choices within those parameters. "You can read a book or do some free writing." Student feels empowered by that choice. But I call it "Agency Illusion".
Agency illusion What I'm phrasing as Agency Illusion is where options are provided to you, and you choose one. There is a feeling of agency, but the choices are mandatory. "This or that"--in reality a choice is being forced upon you without the person perceiving that they're being forced into a decision. This is also a great parenting strategy.
D&D Agency Illusion I have yet to play in what I consider a 'true agency' campaign, but I haven't been a lifetime player--so maybe some of you have. Wondering what you think. I'm in a campaign where at the end of the session the DM goes "Ok, where do you want to go to next?" then we say "here" and then he preps for that. We can't do anything except for where we said we'd go however. So is that agency?
I feel like it's a bit railroady, but I can't quite identify why. In the end we're all having a good time--that's the point, but from a meta-play aspect, it feels like superficial agency: agency illusion.
True Agency Wondering if any of you have had this experience, or whether this is too idealistic. True agency would be that you have a campaign map/area, and players go and do whatever the heck they want, anywhere they want. To make this happen a DM would need to prepare every single major location, city, cave, battlemap ahead of time with loot, quests, material--so that if a player wanted to say "I'm going this town" "I want to visit this ruin" or "Let's go explore the woods!"--there's always something. This would be a massive front-loaded preparation. Does anyone do this? (to be fair, that's exactly what a module does right?)
Ideally I would want a player to be able to go anywhere, do anything--and while that would require a ton of pre-prep, after that prep, session prep would be virtually nil (only need to prep on how they impacted the world).
Thoughts?
Well...
So, my approach comes from a sociological approach to Agency, in relation to Structure (the "parameters" in your description).
I have been a lifetime player -- and my earliest games were straight up dungeon crawls, and then railroaded stuff, and then by the late 80's were what you describe as True Agency.
Been that way ever since. Honestly, I can't use most of what is published for 5e because it either conflicts with the lore of the world I have in use at the time or it requires my sacrificing player agency -- but at the same time, I've still done ToA, and a lot of th little things, because I was able to work those in and the players chose to go and do them based on information they learned in different sessions.
What it comes down to is that I prep like a madwoman for months, lol, and then hope that I am good enough to give them a reason to go do things (and I have to rewrite anything from official sources pretty heavily). but during play, the only time I do any railroading is the very first actual session -- and even that is influenced by the zero sessions (they end with my providing parameters and then asking the players to tell the story of how they all met and ended up wherever they are when things start).
After that, it is all about them making the decisions of what to do. I just started a new campaign, and ended up with three different groups -- one of them is totally ignoring the entire "planned first adventure" and haring off into the desert because they found an abandoned sand skimmer (the result of a really unfortunate roll on a random table), another is already discovering a horrible secret, and the third is still learning about the nature of the town they are in.
All will likely still end up doing the 'first adventure" -- but not because I make them do it. I provide about 3 to 5 hooks for something each session, and often a couple of them will have something to do with a planned out adventure. That's it -- very heavy on roleplay, as a result.
But I have a lot of things that can happen or be done as side quests and fetch quests and as part of random encounters (as will likely be discovered next weekend, when I get back to the sand skimmer group).
in my experience, it really does come down to doing a lot of work ahead of time -- to be prepared and able to have things happen. There are a dozen different potential things they could do around the town they are in that I already created ahead of time -- and I can do random stuff if none of them catch their fancy because I know the setting really well.
So, yeah -- they get to decide what they are going to do.
My job, however, is to create parameters for them, to set things up so that they can make choices that are influenced by the structure. If they opt and decide to kill that ******* blacksmith because, well, he's an ******* and greedy, then they have to deal with the fact that it is a crime, and they will be arrested and they will go to jail, etc, etc etc. if they decide they want to head out of Derier (The ass end of the planet, locals call it), they have to pick a means of travel and then provision and then set out and all of that will cost money -- which they don't have enough to do yet, because they only have the created character leftover cash. And they need to do something.
Parameters. The Structure limiting them -- but always in a way that is within the scope of the world they live in, and only in that way.
I do it this way because that is not only my style, (it allows more improv and the kind of heroic activity i encourage), but also because that's what my players like (from me, at least -- there are more than just me DMing in our group).
So I have a "sandbox" world -- players can go and do anything they want, I just have to be prepared for it. But I also have a 'west marches" -- because there are three different groups I am running in the world, at the same time, and they are doing so in the same timeline. What one group does may affect a different group -- even though they don't know each other (one player has different characters in each of two sessions, so there could be crossover).
there is a two week difference between the groups, too.
So, is it possible? Yes.
Is it easy? Hell no.
Is it worth it? Subjective -- I like it and enjoy it and have no real difficulty with it -- but I have experience and practice. for ohers, this could be the most nightmare situation possible from a Dm perspective.
But it keeps Agency for the players alive and well.
Now, just wait until you find out about the Oppressive Bargain in relation to Agency and Structure.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
"Players deviating from their prior intent is OK but has consequences"
This sounds a bit like punishing players---where's the line there? If they ignore the goblins, rationally, anything could happen. They could be killed by another group, or town guard, etc. I feel like a lot of DM's use 'consequences' as a pejorative. Are there ever good consequences, or is it always punished? (negative consequences).
"Ok, where do you want to go next?" You say its anything but railroad--but there is really no option for them if they don't want to go where they said right? Not saying there is no agency, but there's no true agency if they have no choice to change their mind. I like that you'll ask them to step away to plan---then that seems to account for a change of plans.
Even a hypothetical Laplace's Dungeon Master capable of simulating an entire universe in their mind moment to moment doesn't offer a player true True Agency, because they've precluded the player from choosing to do anything outside the simulated environment.
Mdhe, Appreciate the quality of your writing in your post! Appreciate the thoughtful content and use of semicolons.
So it's impossible to plan every permutation, sure, and--but if you have a world with 5 cities, 35 npcs with quests, and 25 other special locations--that can all be planned before session 0. The world can be fleshed out before players start. (not saying that its required, but it's certainly possible). I think also this conflates agency with freedom to a degree. I don't see pure agency as the ability to defy all natural laws of the universe, rather, it's about being able to make choices freely within the constraints of that universe. (5e being the constraints).
Totally agree on procedural generation--I can stand it in video games either--it's my #1 hate. Not meaningful at all--0%--no intentionality. Procedural equates to garbage for me. But I feel like many campaigns masquerade a conceptual procedural generation as "improv". Improv is certainly cornerstone to D&D, but it's a poor substitute relative to actual plans. As a teacher, I can improv any class instantly--but it won't be remotely as intentional as a planned class with goals stepping towards long term standards. Maybe that's how I would separate procedural with planned beyond a lack of planning: a lack of goals and connected purpose. What defines a wonderful narrative is the interconnectedness of the world with intention right?
"My personal opinion is that players don't play D&D to have absolute agency. " Sure, but as DM's, we strive towards the highest standard right? I think every DM should have a clear understanding of what they define as agency. Ultimately agency for me is having NO choices thrust upon you. Sandbox for me is 'go wherever you want'. And yeah--I think ultimately it's just about having a good time with your buddies, that's the reason to get together and be merry. I feel a positive D&D experience is 70% finding fun people to create positive memories, and 30% what the DM does. So the DM could suck, but your friends are amazing--so, net positive. But still, as DM's we aim for that 30% to be the best possible it can be.
"I shoot for more of a parkway experience; a clear road with multiple pre-determined exits to choose between, with plenty worth seeing at each." Can you elaborate this further? I define my own gold standard as "Sandbox with an unforced narrative" and "living world".
Ultimately it's fun no matter what we do, our DM is great overall--but at the same time there is no option to change our minds. This may be a practical issue, but if I offer a student 5 options to do, the student says option A, then in the last second says "option D!" that's fine, because I've planned 5 options fully. But if the student says "I choose none of those"--that's not an option. So that's what I would call the illusion of agency--forced choices is not agency. It doesn't mean it's not fun, or doesn't work, but I don't think that forcing option choices is agency (it's not awful mind you, its providing a degree of agency, but not purely)
"I shoot for more of a parkway experience; a clear road with multiple pre-determined exits to choose between, with plenty worth seeing at each." Can you elaborate this further? I define my own gold standard as "Sandbox with an unforced narrative" and "living world".
Sure. My current regular campaign is a pretty good example of how I like to run; it takes place in a walled city, closed to the outside for hundreds of years, situated at the isthmus between two continents. To the North, the city contends with an expansionist empire that sees it as the last holdout against their destined conquest of the world; to the South lies a vast, unexplored wilderness full of terrifying monsters, from which few scouts have ever returned. The city is a complex system; it has five districts, each with its own culture and set of major players, as well as a network of tunnels, caverns, and storm drains known as the Undercity which stretches for miles below the streets. The campaign thus far has seen the players move from defeating minor crime lords, to uncovering the city's true history, to unraveling a cosmic mystery hidden at the city's birth. My players can go to any of the districts, anywhere in the Undercity, anywhere on the walltops... where they can't go, or at least where they can't go quickly, is North or South, because those places don't exist yet in the level of detail I would be satisfied with presenting to my players. Now, don't get me wrong; if my players said at our next session, "Screw it, we're sneaking into the empire," I'd let them. But I'd have to delay the actual start of that until I had enough empire written for them to invade.
This, to me, is like a parkway; you can take exit A, B, or C, and there's plenty for you to do there. You can also see other cool places in the distance, but the structure doesn't exist for you to go there yet. If there's interest, I can build an exit D, but I need time and effort for that, and for now I'm spending that effort on making the attractions at A, B and C the best they can be.
As far as how I run the story, I kind of don't. The city is full of people who want things, need things, and are willing do things to get what they want and need. The player characters are some of those people; some of their wants and needs are decided by the players, others I've presented to them over time. Where the players plans cross with the NPCs' plans, we enact that together. Is that a sandbox? Maybe, but only in the sense that say Majora's Mask is a sandbox: there's things that are happening, and you can choose which ones to attend to, but some are definitely more world-shaking than others. I strive more for each thing the players do to feel meaningful rather than for them to be able to do absolutely anything they want at any given moment.
What you're describing sounds amazing. If you need another player, lemme know! :D
What you're describing sounds highly elaborate and well planned with a central narrative/mystery and sandbox in terms of exploration.
"My players can go to any of the districts ..." This sounds like a great degree of freedom for the players. If they go to a district however, is the district empty of new content? So if they've visited there, when they return is it just what they've already seen, or is it evolving in some way? If they say "I want to go into this manor", are you ready for that, or would that be sort of unplanned improv (Come back in 20 minutes folks!)
"As far as how I run the story, I kind of don't. " This sounds ideal, and similar to what I'm doing.
Overall it sounds excellent and well planned providing a high degree of autonomy and agency, but also with the flexibility for unexpected decisions. In your central narrative (the cosmic mystery), how is it presented to the players? Is there an incentive to pursue that path?
Thanks for sharing, it sounds fascinating and a high quality standard of operating, which I can't say I see a lot of.
I think you're never going to get to true True Agency with pre-planning, because the DM can't anticipate every single thing that a player could possibly want to do. You can run a campaign in a closed environment, like Curse of Strahd's Ravenloft, but that's not really a solution; the very act of closing the system is a limitation on player agency. Even a hypothetical Laplace's Dungeon Master capable of simulating an entire universe in their mind moment to moment doesn't offer a player true True Agency, because they've precluded the player from choosing to do anything outside the simulated environment.
Procedural generation is a solution to this, but it comes with its own problems. Basically with procedural generation, you create whatever the players ask for in real time, typically with a series of tables. So if my players ask "is there a potion shop nearby", I can roll a few dice and say "Sure, there's one about 20 minutes away on foot. It's called the Thistle and Berry. The proprietor is a Fire Genasi named Agi Diarahan. They specialize in potions of Lesser Restoration." My players know, on some level, that the Thistle and Berry didn't exist before they asked for it. But they wanted to go to a potion shop, and here one is. The pinnacle of agency. Yet it feels a little hollow, doesn't it? Procedural generation presents you with a world of infinite Content, none of it planned, none of it meaningful.
This is the tightrope DMs have to walk; players want agency, but they also want meaningful experiences. Ultimately you're going to tend more towards one or the other depending on the group and your own preferences and constraints as a DM. My personal opinion is that players don't play D&D to have absolute agency. They expect and even demand some level of restriction in service to the verisimilitude of the world. Rather than a railroad or a sandbox, I shoot for more of a parkway experience; a clear road with multiple pre-determined exits to choose between, with plenty worth seeing at each.
I think you're never going to get to true True Agency with pre-planning, because the DM can't anticipate every single thing that a player could possibly want to do.
Counterpoint:
A DM doesn't need to plan for every single thing that a player could want to do. I don't have any maps of any of my cities. Unlikely to do so -- and I have a couple dozen cities and towns of import. I don't need to do so, because I already know major features, and can easily jut come up with stuff off the top of my head as they move through it.
What I do need to do, is have things that lead to rewarding adventures prepared for them in a scenario structure, gossip, rumor, and casual conversation.
the very act of closing the system is a limitation on player agency. they've precluded the player from choosing to do anything outside the simulated environment.
Counterpoint:
this argument presumes there is no such thing as Structure. When discussing Agency, if you aren't aware of Structure, you miss the entire point of Agency and how it operates and what it means. By your reflection, every person on Earth lacks any kind of agency. You have no Agency. in reality. This is a hollow argument, because it says that True Agency cannot exist, anywhere, in any time, since Existence itself is a limiting factor -- the boundaries of the Universe, even if they could possibly overcome the physical restraints of gravity and fleshly existence.
there is always Structure. Without it, Agency becomes meaningless, because Agency is the individual expression of action and activity within the constraints of Structure -- in the OP's foundational basis, it is the rules of the game, it is the nature of the setting, it is all the stuff you argue exists to limit Agency -- and it does; done well, it does so in the same manner that physics and chemistry and sociology and psychology act to do so here.
Procedural generation is a solution to this,
Except that even within your own framework, it is not, because even procedural generation has foundational limits -- it has a structure by which iit operates in order to develop effective practical and useful end product.
Counterpoint iis that it isn't necessary. A well constructed set of basic maps, a DM who knows what their setting is about (published or original), and effective improvisational actions can supply all the rest -- and do it without actually affecting Agency.
Again, Agency exists in relation to Structure. Structure is everything that limits Agency, and the really interesting stuff to study wis where, how, and why they collide.
Now, it could be experience, it could be just the breadth of my knowledge, but I never have an issue with a PC asking where something is, and not even needing to roll for it. Either there is or isn't -- my knowledge of the world allows me to make a quick determination of probability, the story alters the overall outcome, and then some passersby bumps into them and says "oh, my, I'm sorry, I just couldn't help but overhear that you needed a potion shop. Well, allow me to direct you to Mirka's -- she's one of the best Herbalists in the city, and if she doesn't have what you are looking for, I am sure that she will help you find it. Indeed, here, here's a few gold coins to help you as an apology for running into you. Have a wonderful day".
And I made that up as I typed it, even as I learned that the person talking was a rogue who just lifted a purse and that now in one of the cities is a Rogue pickpocket and an herbalist named Mirka.
Agency is what the player's choose to do next. i don't particularly worry about it -- there's a couple different outcomes there, such as splitting up, looking for something else, asking for a different person that sells potions, and a bunch of others -- and I am more than able to determine the outcomes without even having to roll dice. the structure is what I created already when I made the world -- they operate within it, just like we operate within the world we inhabit.
Ultimately you're going to tend more towards one or the other depending on the group and your own preferences and constraints as a DM.
So, even as you have mostly come to understand that Structure is part of the Concept of Agency (and vice versa), you recognize that there is always going to be some form of structure (including, above all else, the actual rules of the game).
Now, my approach to worldbuilding and creating adventures is that I create Structure. I create the framework and a series of events or locations and possible reasons that might lure the players to them. I am not making them go to those places -- I am simply saying hey, you can go do this if you want. And I have a lot of things for them to possibly go and do. Sometimes, they don't do any of those things. (Tomb of Annihilation in one case never finished because they opted to start a Tavern and a race course with betting).
That's True Agency. When they can do things that you never planned for the to do in any way, as long as they do them within the rules of the game and the nature of the world. I fully expect them to opt to head into space at some point. So there are ways to do that. I expect them to have ideas of traveling among the dimensions -- so there are rules to do that. Life and Death, magic and weapons -- these are all tied to Structure. As a DM, I don't need to give them a set series of choices -- I let them decide both what their choices are, and then which ones they will take. Structure also provides consequences -- they opt to be jerks to people, or kill them, there is going to be a reaction to hat -- that's how Structure works -- law is a form of structure.
Now does this mean that I don't have deep detail with every possible NPC figured out, and know precisely where every building is laid out?
Nope. I don't need it myself, it doesn't add anything to the game for my players, and it lets me stay focused on the stuff they enjoy. I already had more than half my fun jus making the world for them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I think you need to honor the social contract you have with your GM. He asks you ahead of time where you want to go. That's pretty open. He isn't saying the ruins or the town. You get to choose where to go. This allows him to prep the place you SAID you want to go to and give you a good game. That is a great format and you should not feel you are being railroaded at all. It is a choice the party is making, not choosing options he is giving you.
As a sidenote, many parties need the "choose A or B or C." This lets them know possible directions. Otherwise they can get a bit lost and not know what to do.
This is bolded part is especially true for new players. People who have had very few games or none, and people whose past experience or just generally life and character (personality) tends to lead them into that kind of a situation.
And for them, gentle coaxing and such can help, but also so can something where the choices are much more limited -- a dungeon for example. But also, it is really important that the Players and the DM have a similar expectation and playstyle.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I think you're never going to get to true True Agency with pre-planning, because the DM can't anticipate every single thing that a player could possibly want to do.
Well, it's probably possible as long as you're okay with a game that's rather random and pointless. The basic problem is that you can't possibly generate everything ahead of the time, so if you give the PCs complete freedom you have to continually come up with things from scratch, and a creature, encounter, or NPC that I spent five minutes creating just isn't going to be very deep.
Ultimately it's fun no matter what we do, our DM is great overall--but at the same time there is no option to change our minds.
This may be a practical issue, but if I offer a student 5 options to do, the student says option A, then in the last second says "option D!" that's fine, because I've planned 5 options fully. But if the student says "I choose none of those"--that's not an option.
The first part is what you call a dick move. You tell your GM, you're party is going to do something, then after he spends a week in prep, you tell him nah, we're gonna do something else. That is entirely rude. That is wasting his time and is selfish on your part because now he has to scramble to make something up to still give you a good game.
The second part has no real tie to playing a realistic game of D&D. If anybody has successfully run a session in which three PCs each go off on their own, I would love to hear it. I suppose you could pull it off in PbP but not in face to face or online.
that second one -- um, yeah. That's gonna be where i toss in some strong structure.
I dislike splitting the party. i can run it, really, it isn't a problem, and I can bounce back and forth pretty easily, but...
i have groups of 6 or more. A split party leaves folks really bored as hell during those times when their turn isn't happening (and I do a timer, so everyone gets equal time).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Yeah, that's exactly how he felt. "You told me you guys were going here, so I planned for that, then the moment you arrived, you decided 'nah' and went somewhere else". To clarify, this wasn't me who did this, I was not at this session to steer the ship back on course. The second part is just an analogy of the illusion of agency.
Part of the problem is that in real life those same things happen.
I came from a well off family, so I had more Agency than many. Except my parents were scared of me dying so they raised me and advised me to not join the military - something I considered. Did I have real agency?
How many people do the same job as their parents? How many liberals are in Alabama? How many Muslims live in Ireland?
The nature of a Dungeon Master means that the Dungeon Master determines how much Agency PC's have. If they are lazy and only wrote up a Vampire as the opponent, then it does not matter whether you investigate the murder, go to the Colosseum to watch the fights, head into the mountains, or go to the library. Wherever you go, you are going to run into a clue that leads you to the Vampire's underground lair.
But if your DM has written up a Vampire, a Thieves Guild that fixes Colosseum fights, an Ogre tribe, and an Evil Wizard looking for an ancient necromantic tome, then what happens is totally going to depend on which location you go to.
That is the advantage of publicized city settings. They can come with a variety of entirely different adventures for you to choose from. This can give your players Agency.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I had a discussion recently regarding this, and have played in several campaigns with various DM's who approach this very differently.
We know that railroading happens when the choices that players make have no or little impact on adventure/campaign that they're playing in--they're passengers rather than drivers.
But I've run into some grey areas--and I'm curious what you guys think as agency. I'm a teacher by profession, so 'student agency' is a cornerstone to learning, and naturally I bring that background into D&D for further thought.
Agency in Education
So typically agency means that students have a choice. This choice has parameters, but there are choices within those parameters. "You can read a book or do some free writing." Student feels empowered by that choice. But I call it "Agency Illusion".
Agency illusion
What I'm phrasing as Agency Illusion is where options are provided to you, and you choose one. There is a feeling of agency, but the choices are mandatory. "This or that"--in reality a choice is being forced upon you without the person perceiving that they're being forced into a decision. This is also a great parenting strategy.
D&D Agency Illusion
I have yet to play in what I consider a 'true agency' campaign, but I haven't been a lifetime player--so maybe some of you have. Wondering what you think.
I'm in a campaign where at the end of the session the DM goes "Ok, where do you want to go to next?" then we say "here" and then he preps for that. We can't do anything except for where we said we'd go however. So is that agency?
I feel like it's a bit railroady, but I can't quite identify why. In the end we're all having a good time--that's the point, but from a meta-play aspect, it feels like superficial agency: agency illusion.
True Agency
Wondering if any of you have had this experience, or whether this is too idealistic. True agency would be that you have a campaign map/area, and players go and do whatever the heck they want, anywhere they want. To make this happen a DM would need to prepare every single major location, city, cave, battlemap ahead of time with loot, quests, material--so that if a player wanted to say "I'm going this town" "I want to visit this ruin" or "Let's go explore the woods!"--there's always something. This would be a massive front-loaded preparation. Does anyone do this? (to be fair, that's exactly what a module does right?)
Ideally I would want a player to be able to go anywhere, do anything--and while that would require a ton of pre-prep, after that prep, session prep would be virtually nil (only need to prep on how they impacted the world).
Ultimately for me, agency means being given no choices at all--the players make the choices rather than select choices they're given.
Thoughts?
I view the "OK, where do you want to go next?" path as anything except the railroad. While it does ask the players to honor their chosen path, that's more about the meta agreement that a DM needs to prepare content for and be ready for the players in the upcoming game session.
Before I start a campaign, I do enough worldbuilding to feel comfortable running improv sessions as needed. Players deviating from their prior intent is OK but has consequences. I paint my settings as "consequence engines" in so much as the state of the world responds to character actions. If the party of characters ignores the marauding goblins, they've been asked to stop because they want to investigate a lost ruin for treasures - the goblins go on marauding and possibly get stronger. If the party stops the goblins, the ruin may have changed state (someone else got the treasure, or a hidden evil grows stronger).
In general, I try to avoid "Nope, I haven't prepared that. Let's do the thing I've prepared instead!" situations. If the characters are doing something very important and I'm not prepared, I'll ask to step away from the table for 30 minutes or so to do some quick updates—or end the session if it's going to be massive work. In those rare cases, I just speak honestly
Ultimately, agency in my game is "Your character can try anything that makes sense in the setting. There'll be consequences, but that's not always bad."
I think you're never going to get to true True Agency with pre-planning, because the DM can't anticipate every single thing that a player could possibly want to do. You can run a campaign in a closed environment, like Curse of Strahd's Ravenloft, but that's not really a solution; the very act of closing the system is a limitation on player agency. Even a hypothetical Laplace's Dungeon Master capable of simulating an entire universe in their mind moment to moment doesn't offer a player true True Agency, because they've precluded the player from choosing to do anything outside the simulated environment.
Procedural generation is a solution to this, but it comes with its own problems. Basically with procedural generation, you create whatever the players ask for in real time, typically with a series of tables. So if my players ask "is there a potion shop nearby", I can roll a few dice and say "Sure, there's one about 20 minutes away on foot. It's called the Thistle and Berry. The proprietor is a Fire Genasi named Agi Diarahan. They specialize in potions of Lesser Restoration." My players know, on some level, that the Thistle and Berry didn't exist before they asked for it. But they wanted to go to a potion shop, and here one is. The pinnacle of agency. Yet it feels a little hollow, doesn't it? Procedural generation presents you with a world of infinite Content, none of it planned, none of it meaningful.
This is the tightrope DMs have to walk; players want agency, but they also want meaningful experiences. Ultimately you're going to tend more towards one or the other depending on the group and your own preferences and constraints as a DM. My personal opinion is that players don't play D&D to have absolute agency. They expect and even demand some level of restriction in service to the verisimilitude of the world. Rather than a railroad or a sandbox, I shoot for more of a parkway experience; a clear road with multiple pre-determined exits to choose between, with plenty worth seeing at each.
The core problem with doing that is that it means you need to prep everywhere the character could possibly go, which is much more than where the character will actually go. In a walled sandbox like Curse of Strahd that might only force you to prep twice as much material as you'll ever use, but in more open settings it can require completely nonviable amounts of prep (thousands of times as much as you'll ever use). People go with just-in-time prep (tell me at the end of a session where you're going) because it's the only way to effectively run a campaign with a large scope.
I think you need to honor the social contract you have with your GM. He asks you ahead of time where you want to go. That's pretty open. He isn't saying the ruins or the town. You get to choose where to go. This allows him to prep the place you SAID you want to go to and give you a good game. That is a great format and you should not feel you are being railroaded at all. It is a choice the party is making, not choosing options he is giving you.
As a sidenote, many parties need the "choose A or B or C." This lets them know possible directions. Otherwise they can get a bit lost and not know what to do.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I have experimented with this heavily over thirty years, and here are some of my observations. In mmos they call this a sandbox vs. theme park setting. And it should be established first with players what they want before going either way. They are different kinds of games, and different kinds of play. I experimented with a pure sandbox once, using my collected materials about the sword coast. It's possible because I have been playing in that setting my entire life, I have stories about everywhere. But in the pure sandbox we even didn't give the characters a hook to meet, just to see what would happen. It took weeks in the game before people ran into each other coincidentally in Waterdeep. The interesting result of that game though was that while the experiment was declared a terrible idea, the player characters were well-developed and lived on in other games.
Well...
So, my approach comes from a sociological approach to Agency, in relation to Structure (the "parameters" in your description).
I have been a lifetime player -- and my earliest games were straight up dungeon crawls, and then railroaded stuff, and then by the late 80's were what you describe as True Agency.
Been that way ever since. Honestly, I can't use most of what is published for 5e because it either conflicts with the lore of the world I have in use at the time or it requires my sacrificing player agency -- but at the same time, I've still done ToA, and a lot of th little things, because I was able to work those in and the players chose to go and do them based on information they learned in different sessions.
What it comes down to is that I prep like a madwoman for months, lol, and then hope that I am good enough to give them a reason to go do things (and I have to rewrite anything from official sources pretty heavily). but during play, the only time I do any railroading is the very first actual session -- and even that is influenced by the zero sessions (they end with my providing parameters and then asking the players to tell the story of how they all met and ended up wherever they are when things start).
After that, it is all about them making the decisions of what to do. I just started a new campaign, and ended up with three different groups -- one of them is totally ignoring the entire "planned first adventure" and haring off into the desert because they found an abandoned sand skimmer (the result of a really unfortunate roll on a random table), another is already discovering a horrible secret, and the third is still learning about the nature of the town they are in.
All will likely still end up doing the 'first adventure" -- but not because I make them do it. I provide about 3 to 5 hooks for something each session, and often a couple of them will have something to do with a planned out adventure. That's it -- very heavy on roleplay, as a result.
But I have a lot of things that can happen or be done as side quests and fetch quests and as part of random encounters (as will likely be discovered next weekend, when I get back to the sand skimmer group).
in my experience, it really does come down to doing a lot of work ahead of time -- to be prepared and able to have things happen. There are a dozen different potential things they could do around the town they are in that I already created ahead of time -- and I can do random stuff if none of them catch their fancy because I know the setting really well.
So, yeah -- they get to decide what they are going to do.
My job, however, is to create parameters for them, to set things up so that they can make choices that are influenced by the structure. If they opt and decide to kill that ******* blacksmith because, well, he's an ******* and greedy, then they have to deal with the fact that it is a crime, and they will be arrested and they will go to jail, etc, etc etc. if they decide they want to head out of Derier (The ass end of the planet, locals call it), they have to pick a means of travel and then provision and then set out and all of that will cost money -- which they don't have enough to do yet, because they only have the created character leftover cash. And they need to do something.
Parameters. The Structure limiting them -- but always in a way that is within the scope of the world they live in, and only in that way.
I do it this way because that is not only my style, (it allows more improv and the kind of heroic activity i encourage), but also because that's what my players like (from me, at least -- there are more than just me DMing in our group).
So I have a "sandbox" world -- players can go and do anything they want, I just have to be prepared for it. But I also have a 'west marches" -- because there are three different groups I am running in the world, at the same time, and they are doing so in the same timeline. What one group does may affect a different group -- even though they don't know each other (one player has different characters in each of two sessions, so there could be crossover).
there is a two week difference between the groups, too.
So, is it possible? Yes.
Is it easy? Hell no.
Is it worth it? Subjective -- I like it and enjoy it and have no real difficulty with it -- but I have experience and practice. for ohers, this could be the most nightmare situation possible from a Dm perspective.
But it keeps Agency for the players alive and well.
Now, just wait until you find out about the Oppressive Bargain in relation to Agency and Structure.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
"Players deviating from their prior intent is OK but has consequences"
This sounds a bit like punishing players---where's the line there? If they ignore the goblins, rationally, anything could happen. They could be killed by another group, or town guard, etc. I feel like a lot of DM's use 'consequences' as a pejorative. Are there ever good consequences, or is it always punished? (negative consequences).
"Ok, where do you want to go next?"
You say its anything but railroad--but there is really no option for them if they don't want to go where they said right? Not saying there is no agency, but there's no true agency if they have no choice to change their mind. I like that you'll ask them to step away to plan---then that seems to account for a change of plans.
Mdhe, Appreciate the quality of your writing in your post! Appreciate the thoughtful content and use of semicolons.
So it's impossible to plan every permutation, sure, and--but if you have a world with 5 cities, 35 npcs with quests, and 25 other special locations--that can all be planned before session 0. The world can be fleshed out before players start. (not saying that its required, but it's certainly possible). I think also this conflates agency with freedom to a degree. I don't see pure agency as the ability to defy all natural laws of the universe, rather, it's about being able to make choices freely within the constraints of that universe. (5e being the constraints).
Totally agree on procedural generation--I can stand it in video games either--it's my #1 hate. Not meaningful at all--0%--no intentionality. Procedural equates to garbage for me. But I feel like many campaigns masquerade a conceptual procedural generation as "improv". Improv is certainly cornerstone to D&D, but it's a poor substitute relative to actual plans. As a teacher, I can improv any class instantly--but it won't be remotely as intentional as a planned class with goals stepping towards long term standards. Maybe that's how I would separate procedural with planned beyond a lack of planning: a lack of goals and connected purpose. What defines a wonderful narrative is the interconnectedness of the world with intention right?
"My personal opinion is that players don't play D&D to have absolute agency. "
Sure, but as DM's, we strive towards the highest standard right? I think every DM should have a clear understanding of what they define as agency. Ultimately agency for me is having NO choices thrust upon you. Sandbox for me is 'go wherever you want'. And yeah--I think ultimately it's just about having a good time with your buddies, that's the reason to get together and be merry. I feel a positive D&D experience is 70% finding fun people to create positive memories, and 30% what the DM does. So the DM could suck, but your friends are amazing--so, net positive. But still, as DM's we aim for that 30% to be the best possible it can be.
"I shoot for more of a parkway experience; a clear road with multiple pre-determined exits to choose between, with plenty worth seeing at each."
Can you elaborate this further? I define my own gold standard as "Sandbox with an unforced narrative" and "living world".
The consequence is "the DM doesn't have something prepared and the game will be delayed, pointless, or boring while they figure out what to do".
Wysperra,
Ultimately it's fun no matter what we do, our DM is great overall--but at the same time there is no option to change our minds. This may be a practical issue, but if I offer a student 5 options to do, the student says option A, then in the last second says "option D!" that's fine, because I've planned 5 options fully. But if the student says "I choose none of those"--that's not an option. So that's what I would call the illusion of agency--forced choices is not agency. It doesn't mean it's not fun, or doesn't work, but I don't think that forcing option choices is agency (it's not awful mind you, its providing a degree of agency, but not purely)
Sure. My current regular campaign is a pretty good example of how I like to run; it takes place in a walled city, closed to the outside for hundreds of years, situated at the isthmus between two continents. To the North, the city contends with an expansionist empire that sees it as the last holdout against their destined conquest of the world; to the South lies a vast, unexplored wilderness full of terrifying monsters, from which few scouts have ever returned. The city is a complex system; it has five districts, each with its own culture and set of major players, as well as a network of tunnels, caverns, and storm drains known as the Undercity which stretches for miles below the streets. The campaign thus far has seen the players move from defeating minor crime lords, to uncovering the city's true history, to unraveling a cosmic mystery hidden at the city's birth. My players can go to any of the districts, anywhere in the Undercity, anywhere on the walltops... where they can't go, or at least where they can't go quickly, is North or South, because those places don't exist yet in the level of detail I would be satisfied with presenting to my players. Now, don't get me wrong; if my players said at our next session, "Screw it, we're sneaking into the empire," I'd let them. But I'd have to delay the actual start of that until I had enough empire written for them to invade.
This, to me, is like a parkway; you can take exit A, B, or C, and there's plenty for you to do there. You can also see other cool places in the distance, but the structure doesn't exist for you to go there yet. If there's interest, I can build an exit D, but I need time and effort for that, and for now I'm spending that effort on making the attractions at A, B and C the best they can be.
As far as how I run the story, I kind of don't. The city is full of people who want things, need things, and are willing do things to get what they want and need. The player characters are some of those people; some of their wants and needs are decided by the players, others I've presented to them over time. Where the players plans cross with the NPCs' plans, we enact that together. Is that a sandbox? Maybe, but only in the sense that say Majora's Mask is a sandbox: there's things that are happening, and you can choose which ones to attend to, but some are definitely more world-shaking than others. I strive more for each thing the players do to feel meaningful rather than for them to be able to do absolutely anything they want at any given moment.
Mdhe,
What you're describing sounds amazing. If you need another player, lemme know! :D
What you're describing sounds highly elaborate and well planned with a central narrative/mystery and sandbox in terms of exploration.
"My players can go to any of the districts ..."
This sounds like a great degree of freedom for the players. If they go to a district however, is the district empty of new content? So if they've visited there, when they return is it just what they've already seen, or is it evolving in some way? If they say "I want to go into this manor", are you ready for that, or would that be sort of unplanned improv (Come back in 20 minutes folks!)
"As far as how I run the story, I kind of don't. "
This sounds ideal, and similar to what I'm doing.
Overall it sounds excellent and well planned providing a high degree of autonomy and agency, but also with the flexibility for unexpected decisions. In your central narrative (the cosmic mystery), how is it presented to the players? Is there an incentive to pursue that path?
Thanks for sharing, it sounds fascinating and a high quality standard of operating, which I can't say I see a lot of.
I think you're never going to get to true True Agency with pre-planning, because the DM can't anticipate every single thing that a player could possibly want to do.
Counterpoint:
A DM doesn't need to plan for every single thing that a player could want to do. I don't have any maps of any of my cities. Unlikely to do so -- and I have a couple dozen cities and towns of import. I don't need to do so, because I already know major features, and can easily jut come up with stuff off the top of my head as they move through it.
What I do need to do, is have things that lead to rewarding adventures prepared for them in a scenario structure, gossip, rumor, and casual conversation.
the very act of closing the system is a limitation on player agency.
they've precluded the player from choosing to do anything outside the simulated environment.
Counterpoint:
this argument presumes there is no such thing as Structure. When discussing Agency, if you aren't aware of Structure, you miss the entire point of Agency and how it operates and what it means. By your reflection, every person on Earth lacks any kind of agency. You have no Agency. in reality. This is a hollow argument, because it says that True Agency cannot exist, anywhere, in any time, since Existence itself is a limiting factor -- the boundaries of the Universe, even if they could possibly overcome the physical restraints of gravity and fleshly existence.
there is always Structure. Without it, Agency becomes meaningless, because Agency is the individual expression of action and activity within the constraints of Structure -- in the OP's foundational basis, it is the rules of the game, it is the nature of the setting, it is all the stuff you argue exists to limit Agency -- and it does; done well, it does so in the same manner that physics and chemistry and sociology and psychology act to do so here.
Procedural generation is a solution to this,
Except that even within your own framework, it is not, because even procedural generation has foundational limits -- it has a structure by which iit operates in order to develop effective practical and useful end product.
Counterpoint iis that it isn't necessary. A well constructed set of basic maps, a DM who knows what their setting is about (published or original), and effective improvisational actions can supply all the rest -- and do it without actually affecting Agency.
Again, Agency exists in relation to Structure. Structure is everything that limits Agency, and the really interesting stuff to study wis where, how, and why they collide.
Now, it could be experience, it could be just the breadth of my knowledge, but I never have an issue with a PC asking where something is, and not even needing to roll for it. Either there is or isn't -- my knowledge of the world allows me to make a quick determination of probability, the story alters the overall outcome, and then some passersby bumps into them and says "oh, my, I'm sorry, I just couldn't help but overhear that you needed a potion shop. Well, allow me to direct you to Mirka's -- she's one of the best Herbalists in the city, and if she doesn't have what you are looking for, I am sure that she will help you find it. Indeed, here, here's a few gold coins to help you as an apology for running into you. Have a wonderful day".
And I made that up as I typed it, even as I learned that the person talking was a rogue who just lifted a purse and that now in one of the cities is a Rogue pickpocket and an herbalist named Mirka.
Agency is what the player's choose to do next. i don't particularly worry about it -- there's a couple different outcomes there, such as splitting up, looking for something else, asking for a different person that sells potions, and a bunch of others -- and I am more than able to determine the outcomes without even having to roll dice. the structure is what I created already when I made the world -- they operate within it, just like we operate within the world we inhabit.
Ultimately you're going to tend more towards one or the other depending on the group and your own preferences and constraints as a DM.
So, even as you have mostly come to understand that Structure is part of the Concept of Agency (and vice versa), you recognize that there is always going to be some form of structure (including, above all else, the actual rules of the game).
Now, my approach to worldbuilding and creating adventures is that I create Structure. I create the framework and a series of events or locations and possible reasons that might lure the players to them. I am not making them go to those places -- I am simply saying hey, you can go do this if you want. And I have a lot of things for them to possibly go and do. Sometimes, they don't do any of those things. (Tomb of Annihilation in one case never finished because they opted to start a Tavern and a race course with betting).
That's True Agency. When they can do things that you never planned for the to do in any way, as long as they do them within the rules of the game and the nature of the world. I fully expect them to opt to head into space at some point. So there are ways to do that. I expect them to have ideas of traveling among the dimensions -- so there are rules to do that. Life and Death, magic and weapons -- these are all tied to Structure. As a DM, I don't need to give them a set series of choices -- I let them decide both what their choices are, and then which ones they will take. Structure also provides consequences -- they opt to be jerks to people, or kill them, there is going to be a reaction to hat -- that's how Structure works -- law is a form of structure.
Now does this mean that I don't have deep detail with every possible NPC figured out, and know precisely where every building is laid out?
Nope. I don't need it myself, it doesn't add anything to the game for my players, and it lets me stay focused on the stuff they enjoy. I already had more than half my fun jus making the world for them.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
This is bolded part is especially true for new players. People who have had very few games or none, and people whose past experience or just generally life and character (personality) tends to lead them into that kind of a situation.
And for them, gentle coaxing and such can help, but also so can something where the choices are much more limited -- a dungeon for example. But also, it is really important that the Players and the DM have a similar expectation and playstyle.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Well, it's probably possible as long as you're okay with a game that's rather random and pointless. The basic problem is that you can't possibly generate everything ahead of the time, so if you give the PCs complete freedom you have to continually come up with things from scratch, and a creature, encounter, or NPC that I spent five minutes creating just isn't going to be very deep.
The first part is what you call a dick move. You tell your GM, you're party is going to do something, then after he spends a week in prep, you tell him nah, we're gonna do something else. That is entirely rude. That is wasting his time and is selfish on your part because now he has to scramble to make something up to still give you a good game.
The second part has no real tie to playing a realistic game of D&D. If anybody has successfully run a session in which three PCs each go off on their own, I would love to hear it. I suppose you could pull it off in PbP but not in face to face or online.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
that second one -- um, yeah. That's gonna be where i toss in some strong structure.
I dislike splitting the party. i can run it, really, it isn't a problem, and I can bounce back and forth pretty easily, but...
i have groups of 6 or more. A split party leaves folks really bored as hell during those times when their turn isn't happening (and I do a timer, so everyone gets equal time).
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Wysperra,
Yeah, that's exactly how he felt. "You told me you guys were going here, so I planned for that, then the moment you arrived, you decided 'nah' and went somewhere else". To clarify, this wasn't me who did this, I was not at this session to steer the ship back on course. The second part is just an analogy of the illusion of agency.
Part of the problem is that in real life those same things happen.
I came from a well off family, so I had more Agency than many. Except my parents were scared of me dying so they raised me and advised me to not join the military - something I considered. Did I have real agency?
How many people do the same job as their parents? How many liberals are in Alabama? How many Muslims live in Ireland?
The nature of a Dungeon Master means that the Dungeon Master determines how much Agency PC's have. If they are lazy and only wrote up a Vampire as the opponent, then it does not matter whether you investigate the murder, go to the Colosseum to watch the fights, head into the mountains, or go to the library. Wherever you go, you are going to run into a clue that leads you to the Vampire's underground lair.
But if your DM has written up a Vampire, a Thieves Guild that fixes Colosseum fights, an Ogre tribe, and an Evil Wizard looking for an ancient necromantic tome, then what happens is totally going to depend on which location you go to.
That is the advantage of publicized city settings. They can come with a variety of entirely different adventures for you to choose from. This can give your players Agency.